'Public' Consultation Over ACTA In Mexico Almost Required NDAs, Blogger Removed For Tweeting

from the very-public dept

Geraldine Juarez writes in to let us know of her experience attending what was billed as a "public hearing" about the ACTA treaty in Mexico (link in Spanish, Google translation here), which sounded really messed up. First, despite it being a public hearing, originally those putting on the event wanted attendees to sign nondisclosure agreements. After pushing back on this, they finally agreed to remove that requirement, but there was a lot of confusion about it and it may have kept people with serious questions about ACTA from attending. The room, then, was mostly industry people, who were apparently concerned as to why everyday citizens were in attendance, and they even booed a lawyer who questioned the human rights angle. As for Geraldine, she tried twittering the event, and the industry folks demanded she leave (and had a guard escort her out). It's almost like they're trying to make themselves into a caricature of businesses plotting to harm the public. When others asked where the actual ACTA discussions in Mexico would be held, they were told that was "confidential." It appears that the public is certainly not welcome.

Reader Comments

"The room, then, was mostly industry people, who were apparently concerned as to why everyday citizens were in attendance"

because these laws affect everyday citizens. Or is it that these evil industry people have so little regard for morality that they do not care that they are imposing unjust laws on others against their will without their knowledge or consent.

"and they even booed a lawyer who questioned the human rights angle."

More evidence that these evil rich people have ZERO, that's right, ABSOLUTELY ZERO regard for morality. ALL the evidence suggests that these people have NO regard for morality, they only regard themselves and don't care for anyone else or about human rights.

"and the industry folks demanded she leave (and had a guard escort her out)."

and the public should DEMAND, with OVERWHELMING FORCE, that these industry people be put in jail for a LONG LONG time.

Thanks !

thanks for bring attention to this! The guard didn't scort me though. They sent a guard first to ask me to stop tweeting. Then as they demand to stop and reptile industry yell at me to get out, i rather decide, to go out than being part of that bullshit.

Re: Re: Thanks !

Mike, you have been writing techdirt for more than 10 years, and you know that without a doubt, the public has pulled things their way almost exclusively for the last 7 or 8 years. Much of today's "take it, it's free" society is as a result of this massive shift of power away from rights holders and into the hands of the general public. This is why members of the public feel they are the ones to decide what will be put online, what will be made free, and what will be shared without permission.

Being a rights holder is pretty much like being assigned as a second class citizen, as the general public has decision powers over your products.

Much of it happens because of the legal tap dancing around "illegal" torrents and file sharing, particularly the use of harbor countries, variations between laws, and such. What we end up with is various and contradictory rulings, which are difficult to enforce but very easy to use as lubrication for the file sharing culture.

The public isn't invited to be part of the process mostly because the public has already spoken clearly with it's actions, and those actions show a total lack of respect for the concepts of IP and rights. We don't ask drivers who speed to help establish safe speed limits, why ask people who don't respect the current laws to help craft new (and tougher) laws that they won't want to respect either?

Re:

At least you acknowledge that you are not concerned with the will of the general public but instead that you want the government to exist for the sole purpose of unfairly serving a very small group of people against the will of the general public. The general public is just supposed to pay taxes and allow those tax dollars to be used serve the will of a few against the will of the general public.

and to say that the general public has ever gotten their way is a lie. In general the top one percent gets their way against the will of the public and the evidence is the existing laws in place (ie: the length of intellectual property, the punishment for infringement is much higher than the punishment for fraudulently claiming rights to something in the public domain, the fact that the rich (ie: the CRIA) get to enforce the laws on the regular person yet the rich get to break the laws themselves unpunished), the secretive meetings that involve only the wealthiest, the monopolies on cableco/telco infrastructure and who can build new infrastructure ensuring that almost all content outside the Internet that is easily available to the general public is only available at monopoly prices, both the delivery of that content and the content itself and hence preventing independent artists and musicians from distributing their content even if under CC licenses, the monopolies that taxi cab drivers and corporations get for NO good reason, etc...).

The government is supposed to serve the people, and not just the rich corporations, because the people pay taxes. If the government doesn't like it they can stop taxing us.

Not to mention that you want to destroy a perfectly good search and information/content delivery system (ie: youtube) with stupid laws which doesn't serve the artists and musicians (it makes it more difficult for them to get their work out) and it doesn't serve the general public (makes it more difficult for them to find creative commons work) because you don't care for the artists nor for the general public, just yourself and your unowed monopoly on everything.

Re: Re:

(not to mention the fact that the rich get a monopoly on public airwaves and on the content on those public airwaves. It's a bunch of nonsense, there is plenty of evidence that the government ONLY servers the rich and that they do NOT serve the general public and have hardly ever done so.

"Mike, you have been writing techdirt for more than 10 years, and you know that without a doubt, the public has pulled things their way almost exclusively for the last 7 or 8 years."

Please provide evidence for this, because there is plenty of evidence contradicting this statement. You think this is the mainstream media, that you can just come here and make things up and people are supposed to just believe it unchallenged. It doesn't work that way.

Re:

Re: Re:

I'll answer both of your posts at the same time.

Speeding is exactly like copyright infringement. The laws for speed are set by the elected officials, and the public the votes with their right foot. They can choose to break the law or not. You can choose to download that file illegally or not. It's the way things go.

The general public is just supposed to pay taxes and allow those tax dollars to be used serve the will of a few against the will of the general public.

Once you start down this road, you sound like a ton foil hatter hard at work. We aren't talking about "against the will of the general public" we are talking about against the will of a small percentage of the general public. hck, one UK study on file trading showed only 10% of people claimed to be file traders. By your own logic, why would 10% of the population be allowed to dictate to the other 90% what they should do? Would you like it if 10% of the people decides that your house was now a crack den, and you didn't get a choice? Perhaps 10% of the people decide you have to be a gay prostitute 2 days a month?

Your logic is just a major fail.

you don't care for the artists nor for the general public, just yourself and your unowed monopoly on everything

I don't really have to go any further than that. I don't work in the music industry, I don't work for hollywood, and I don't produce movie or music content. It isn't MY monopoly (nor is it a monopoly at all!).

In the end, your post is a rant, not a logical discussion. You are the weakest link, goodbye.

Re: Re: Re:

The law for prohibition is set by the elected officials, and the public then votes. They can choose to break the law or not. You can choose to drink that booze illegally or not. It's the way things go.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"In February 2008 the LA Times Blog published results of a US campus attitude survey which showed that 64 percent of respondents download music regularly through file-sharing networks and other unauthorized sources."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

hit submit not preview.

If you check out the countries where these sort of laws have been implemented you will see that there is a temporary drop. Then people talk about how they can continue downloading (blogs, message boards, e-mail,etc). Then encryption starts going up. Small groups form and share via sFTP. VPN's, unknown encryption programs, and proxy server use goes through the roof. The file sharers then feel more secure and download more because they cant be watched.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Also see (from the same link)

"In the same survey, 60 percent of people reported downloading music because of a limited budget. A common attitude concerning music downloading was that of ‘why should one pay for something when they can get it for free?'"

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Oh and this one as well

"According to an earlier poll, 75 percent of young voters in Sweden (18-20) supported file sharing when presented with the statement: "I think it is OK to download files from the Net, even if it is illegal." Of the respondents, 38 percent said they "adamantly agreed" while 39 percent said they "partly agreed".[51]"

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

God, you are funny. Do you even read your own quotes? "campus", "young voters". You continue to be the weakest link by far, and not even a very good troll.

The 10% number is a study posted by Mike here on Techdirt. You can look around for it. He thought it was off.

The Canadian study Mike so often points to showed that only 20% of online users in Canada had downloaded a file in the previous 30 days, even with a totally passive legal situation that tolerates file sharing.

So sorry, but reality called and set the record straight for you. Even Mike wouldn't be so silly as to use the type of quotes you are pushing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The Canadian study Mike so often points to showed that only 20% of online users in Canada had downloaded a file in the previous 30 days, even with a totally passive legal situation that tolerates file sharing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"God, you are funny. Do you even read your own quotes? "campus", "young voters". You continue to be the weakest link by far, and not even a very good troll."

of course I read my quotes. Peraps older people don't participate in file sharing as much because they don't understand how to fle share so much being they are more inclined to be tech illiterate. ALso note, you seem to ignore all the other studies I have provided as well.

and what study is it? and to say that 20 percent have participated in file sharing within the last 30 days

A: does not tell you how many have participated prior to the last 30 days.

B: does not tell you how many people are in favor of current intellectual property laws

C: suggests that a high percentage of people are not in favor of current intellectual property laws

D: It is only a SMALL, VERY SMALL, percentage of people that are pushing for these intellectual property laws (namely the RIAA and such) while a FAR LARGER percentage of people are opposing it.

Also, if the overwhelming majority of Americans do support the concept of intellectual property then they are free to honor such concepts and respect intellectual property requests by others without having laws put in place to enforce intellectual property priviledges. The fact that laws must be set to enforce such privileges on the masses suggests that not enough people support intellectaul property enough to honor intellectual property privileges and pay for everything unless the government grants a monopoly by law.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The 10% number is a study posted by Mike here on Techdirt. You can look around for it. He thought it was off."

also notice the lazy nature of intellectual property maximists. They're too lazy to even make an effort to provide the data to support what they claim. Why should we allow these lazy thugs to run things, they just want to use intellectual property to make money off of the hard work of others and not do any work for themselves.

Re: Re: Re:

Fine. I'll spell it out for you. Copyright and IP are NOT rights. They are PRIVILEGES. They were given to you by We The People. We The People should reserve the right to remove them, as well. You can rant and whine and argue all you want, but these things are not proving to be conducive to society at large, but to a small minority who are using them to lock up everything ever created. This is wrong and immoral, and nothing you say can change that. You, however, do not care for justice, just for mocking the desires of the masses. Keep in mind, it doesn't matter if there are 100,000 troops when there are 300 MILLION citizens.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

As an artist/creator don't you think I get a say in all of this? Or am I a useless artist that needs protecting? Or a thief because I wish to use the artifacts of my childhood to make commentary about the present and future?

Oh right. I need a license. How much? $5000? Well, I guess I can't make that kind of art as an artist.

It's a good thing copyright protects dead artists from living artists using the dead artists work to make commentary.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

> Let me spell it out for you. Copyright and IP are like
> contracts - you can't just revoke the contract when
> you feel like it.

That is not true.

A copyright is a granted privilege, not a contract.

The Crown grants the copyright upon creation of the created work. The Crown may revoke that privilege, or modify its scope, at the Crown's sole discretion.

As it stands presently, copyright exists for 50 years from the creation of that work.

Given how fast technology is moving today it would not be unreasonable for the copyright period be modified as follows:

+ 10 years: all software
+ 30 years: recorded music (analogue and digital), photographs (from original digital formats), and motion pictures, and all other digital artistic objects covered by copyright
+ 50 years: photographs (from original non-digital formats), printed music, books, and all other physical or analogue artistic objects covered by copyright.

Once the copyright expires then the works become public domain objects that all persons are legitimately permitted to use, modify, and distribute for any purpose, by any means, either remunerated or non-remunerated.

That's how I think it should be. That way the creator of the object gets to benefit from their creativity, and the community at large also gets to benefit from those artistic creations.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes I agree one should not revoke a contract just because you feel like it.

So all that old stuff which was published when copyright terms were shorter should go back to those shorter terms, no?

It's worth remembering the original purpose of copyright: to encourage the eventual expansion of the public domain.

Does a copyright that extends beyond the lifespan of the person who created it actually have an affect on their inclination to do so?

Even if you allow that they could sell that residual to a holding company, the economic difference to them would be minimal -- the increase in Net Present Value between "50 years" and "infinite" is only a few percent for any reasonable rate of return.

But to society at large, having some material entering the public domain is 100% better than having NO material entering the public domain.

I would have no problem with the strengthening of copyright enforcement if it were accompanied by a reduction in copyright terms to a level that effectively abolishes the "residual copyright industry".

But the lack of such quid-pro-quo points not at industry being concerned about "contract enforcement" so much as out-and-out greed, at the expense of the rest of us.

PS: assertions that people would prefer to keep the entertainment industry rather than reduce copyright rights are hot air: consider how much time people spend watching youtube rather than watching TV or

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes I agree one should not revoke a contract just because you feel like it.

So all that old stuff which was published when copyright terms were shorter should go back to those shorter terms, no?

It's worth remembering the original purpose of copyright: to encourage the eventual expansion of the public domain.

Does a copyright that extends beyond the lifespan of the person who created it actually have an affect on their inclination to do so?

Even if you allow that they could sell that residual to a holding company, the economic difference to them would be minimal -- the increase in Net Present Value between "50 years" and "infinite" is only a few percent for any reasonable rate of return.

But to society at large, having some material entering the public domain is 100% better than having NO material entering the public domain.

I would have no problem with the strengthening of copyright enforcement if it were accompanied by a reduction in copyright terms to a level that effectively abolishes the "residual copyright industry".

But the lack of such quid-pro-quo points not at industry being concerned about "contract enforcement" so much as out-and-out greed, at the expense of the rest of us.

PS: assertions that people would prefer to keep the entertainment industry rather than reduce copyright rights are hot air: consider how much time people spend watching youtube rather than watching TV or movies: maybe not a majority yet, but it's certainly moving.

Re: Re: Re: The Anti-Mike

Speeding is exactly like copyright infringement. The laws for speed are set by the elected officials, and the public the votes with their right foot. They can choose to break the law or not. You can choose to download that file illegally or not. It's the way things go.
You're absolutely right. Speeding and copyright infringement are very similar. Both are rules passed by elected officials and both attempt to represent the will of the majority. I've seen evidence of this first hand. Our district recently changed the speed limit in our area.
You see, the process was simple. First there was an open, public forum meeting where anyone who wanted to could speak. Nobody was banned, not even the people who speed (because let's face it, we all speed once in a while). The city had a couple traffic flow specialists and there were a number of people who pointed out specific areas that should be faster or slower due to local concerns. Of course not everyone got their way. Some areas weren't slowed down, some weren't sped up, but some were. Because it was an open, public process. Just like the ACTA negotiations.
Oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting, ACTA negotiations are not open and public.
People wouldn't be nearly so outraged and the rules you seek to implement would be far more likely to pass if the process was transparent and the general public could see what was on the table as the treaties progressed. Instead you have people engaging in letter-writing campaigns urging representatives to veto the treaty regardless of what it contains. Because the process wasn't transparent.
We're not asking for no copyrights, we're not asking for free content, and we're not asking for major labels to go under. We are only asking that we be allowed to understand what rules people are attempting to put in place, and we are asking that, even if it isn't followed, our feedback be solicited.

Re: Re:

There are no "IP rights" unless society as a whole decides there are, and creates them through its laws. They don't come out of thin air, but out of social consensus. If some businesses find themselves on the wrong side of a changing consensus, boo-hoo for them.

Re:

Sorry, I have to correct you on something (I make the mistake in wording at times as well). Society as a whole does not mean that everyone gets an individual vote on every item, nor do they get some sort of magical veto power. There is never a requirement to make 100% of the people happy.

Heck, if you look at the way laws are passed in the US, based on the votes of the house or senate, you would say that 40% or so of the people are always unhappy. In most democracies, consensus is rarely reached, rather the majority of the day passes the laws that the majority of the future will likely not repeal.

If some businesses find themselves on the wrong side of a changing consensus, boo-hoo for them

That changing consensus would depend on the question you ask. If you ask "would you like all music and movies for free all the time", generally the public would quickly answer "hell yeah!". But if you asked "Would you like the current music and movies from hollywood and the big movie companies to disappear and be replaced by cheaper, unknown acts and independant movies, but they would be free" the anwer would be more like "hell no!".

The current "consensus" only exists because for the moment, enough people are still paying for the products to support their production. That consensus would change when those products stop being in the marketplace.

Taken another way, consider the public's twin (and contradictory) desires to both enjoy booze and not get killed while driving. Driving drunk is becoming less and less socially acceptable in part because the public has seen the other end of the scale (when police use to turn a blind eye, never did checkpoints, etc). When presented with their options of unlimited freedom (drink and drive, the sheriff don't mind and he don't work on Saturday night), or restricted freedoms with more of what they like (living longer lives) the tides have turned.

Watch closely. The consensus change you are seeing is only a very small part of a larger and longer trend. You could have taken from the days of moonshining that people didn't want commercially made booze, or preferred bathtub gin to London dry gin, but the longer trend showed that not to be the case. It is helpful to stand back a couple of paces, getting to see more forest and fewer of those trees.

Re: Re:

Re: Re:

"That changing consensus would depend on the question you ask. If you ask "would you like all music and movies for free all the time", generally the public would quickly answer "hell yeah!". But if you asked "Would you like the current music and movies from hollywood and the big movie companies to disappear and be replaced by cheaper, unknown acts and independant movies, but they would be free" the anwer would be more like "hell no!"."

You are assuming that the only way to make content available is to grant monopoly power on it and this is false. Hollywood itself was built on piracy and yet it was able to make content available.

Re: Re: Re:

(not to mention, even IF the end of intellectual property did mean the end of music and art, which it WON'T, I could live with that. but to say that without IP there would be no music and art and content is absolute nonsense, there are plenty of songs and such freely available under creative commons licenses over the Internet for instance).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

(Not to mention the biggest limiting factor to freely available content (ie: high quality CC content) over the Internet is bandwidth, but the lack of bandwidth in the U.S. is exactly a result of the government granting monopolies on cableco/telco infrastructure and on who can build new infrastructure.

Re: Re:

I actually used to find your comments enlightening because they provided an opposite view of my own but....wow...you have gone off the deep end:

Sorry, I have to correct you on something (I make the mistake in wording at times as well). Society as a whole does not mean that everyone gets an individual vote on every item, nor do they get some sort of magical veto power.

Do you understand that we live in a Democracy? Yes, the US is not a true Democracy in that each citizen has a vote on every item, but we elect people who are supposed to serve the WILL OF THE PEOPLE. These elected officials are supposed to vote based on the will of their constituents. We vote people into office to vote for us, because we all cannot be there.

Are you really saying that the Government, who we elect to serve us, should ignore the will of the people and create laws in secrete? Really?

Re: Re: Re:

Are you really saying that the Government, who we elect to serve us, should ignore the will of the people and create laws in secrete? Really?

No, I am saying that in electing a government and representatives (every 4 years, every 6 years, etc) you effectively create a proxy for your vote through these people. They are not bound to follow your exact individual wills, as that would be impossible. Rather, they do what they (and their party, if you are in the US) decide is the right course of action. After that time frame is up, you grade their work and either elect them again, or replace them.

Democracy does not mean that you vote on every individual bill, every individual spending act, every individual new law. You elect people for a term to do that instead. in many places, where the win was 53%, it means that the will of 47% in theory is ignored.

Most importantly, and this is the key: You as a single individual do not have a veto right over any new laws. Even 10% of the people cannot get together and veto a law. If this was possibly, the drug lords and the heroin users would have long since repealed the drug laws just to make their lives easier.

In the case of this particular item (which is not specifically law as much as a treaty negotiation), the secrecy is only there I think to allow a more open flow of ideas within the system without fear of public outrage or misunderstanding of the discussion. It would be very easy for the 1%ers to scare the crap out of people by misrepresenting bargaining positions or comment made. Mike ran a story a few weeks back about a leaked document and a comment made by one group involved (UK I think) that was run pretty hard.

I would say "wait for the end result, then debate the end result" rather than the current tilting at windmills methods going on.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's not a treaty that fights counterfeiting. Counterfeiting would be someone trying to deceive someone else into believing that something (ie: fake money) is something else (ie: real money).

A treaty that creates a bunch of IP laws AGAINST the will of the people is not the same as a treaty that fights counterfeiting.

The reason most countries don't have IP laws and they don't adopt them is because the overwhelming majority of the population does NOT want IP laws. It's the U.S. and other IP maximist GOVERNMENTS and big corporations that are trying to force such laws on other countries (ie: by threatening them with trade sanctions) against the will of their people and even against the will of their governments. The people do not want this or else these countries would adopt it without the need for the big corporations to threaten with trade sanctions. And the majority of Americans and even people under IP maximists governments don't want these laws either, they are just being forced upon them against their will.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

As much as I hate to admit it I agree with the anti-mike on this. We live in a republic not a democracy. You should be familiar with the Pledge of Allegiance

"If this was possibly, the drug lords and the heroin users would have long since repealed the drug laws just to make their lives easier."

This I disagree with you on ... to make drugs legal you would put the drug dealers out of business as prices would drop and they would be commodisized (spelling).

"wait for the end result, then debate the end result"

This is something I am looking forward to. The criminalization of information and ideas. Stamp a copyright on it and you can prevent people from accessing the knowledge. Not going to happen, we monkeys (humans) are very curious creatures. If you say "you cant know this piece of information" people will go out of their way to find that piece of information.

If you use prohibition as an example of outlawing something people do and wont stop doing reguardless of the law and mix that with human curiosity and the thurst for knowledge. You end up with a non starter.

And to prove that point the 75?? year old woman down the street was dancing in front of her house doing this hip grinding thing, it was very visually disturbing. I asked if she was okay and she told me she was listening to Tom Jones burning down the house she had just downloaded it off of LimeWire. When you have people of that generation downloading you have already lost.

"products" going "unavailable" will ultimately be good.

> The current "consensus" only exists because for the
> moment, enough people are still paying for the products
> to support their production. That consensus would change
> when those products stop being in the marketplace.

when the "products" from monopolistic providers "stop being in the marketplace" then ordinary people will replace them with their own. We would go back to ordinary people making their own entertainment instead of merely purchasing pre-packaged sanitized commercialized pap designed to generate maximum revenue for "content providers".

Technology has progressed considerably. A significant percentage of the population now has the resources in their own homes to make and distribute their own films and music.

One example of that was the full-length feature film: "Star Wreck: In The Perkinning" which was made by a small group of individuals and then released on the WWW for people to freely download and share.

Yes

"Are you really saying that the Government, who we elect to serve us, should ignore the will of the people and create laws in secrete? Really?"

Really. That is EXACTLY what TAM is saying. TAM is all for the letter of the law superceding the will of the people, and for the govt to have ABSOLUTE POWER over its citizenry, against the people, against the laws, against the constitution. The rich, the powerful, corporations, and govt are to be given all power and the people NONE. The people do not get a voice. The people do not count. The people are wrong, and it will be our overlords and masters that will TELL us what we need, want, or should have.

Re: Yes

Re: Re: Yes

Dude you are a dork ... a shill ... and you should change your name to "live from under a bridge" ie troll if thats to much for you to figure out.

Your reasoning is so flawed in so many ways. Making laws to change the way people think, to attempt to force them to change, or to make them afraid to do something has never worked in all of human history. In fact it has always caused the opposite happen. ACTA will actually be what causes the labels to fail and for hollywood to follow suit. If you set illegitimate boundries that people know are wrong they tend to push back against those boundries, its human nature. Expect a huge backlash from the population at large when ACTA happens.

"and they even booed a lawyer who questioned the human rights angle."

to antimike

1st id like to give you some stats and you go find hollywoods lil study that i found on this by there own numbers WE ARE SOME MASSIVE number
and guess what we have a cdr levy so there is no infringment of music in canada UNLESS you SELL THE CDRS with a label that looks or attempts too look like an original

thats a 20000 fine
why do we need any more of a law i dont know
why do we need to harm the children in gathering music to place on cdrs

why when its a proven fact if its done this way it only pushes the actual trade to gangsters who already dont care about your laws and rules

and NO ANTI-MIKE copyright is not a contract like you htink its a right given for a limited time say 12years so that person A can use revenue to keep on innovating and creating.
IF you make it 75 years plus the life of an author say another 50 years.
I could write say 5 books and maybe sit back and do nohting more forever of my life and my kid too.

THATS removing my kids tax base form the whole ( negative journey on return of investment as society also schools and educates this person for example)
THATS not creating an atmosphere where i feel like doing much i do a lot early and sit back and GOUGE and whine i aintmaking enough for hte rest of my life to get the money paid to me increased over and over and over and over
until i too have a mansion and yacht

WOW COPYRIGHT ROCKS lets all put it a UNLIMITED TIME and see wtf starts happening

stats

sept 2005
i goto futureshop theres a 29.95 music cdr
gee wonder why there is pirating and before they knew p2p would be a prob this is your result
a 25cent piece a plastic that the CRIA dont pay artists

5.4million canucks simultaneously logged into p2p systems ( for you that means at any time of the day that many people )

march 2006
9.8 million

do you think this trend would decrease or increase and what proportion of net users of Canada was that
MORE THEN 60%
and more then a full third of canadas population

In response to Anti-Mike's observations.

Anti-Mike,

It's really difficult to tell if you truly stand behind your position, or if you're just throwing out rhetoric to stir the hornets anxious to contradict you. In reading your replies, there is logic behind them, however, I feel your logic is taken from a stance which doesn't take in the "bigger picture".

Based on your logic, I, as a web developer, should be receiving royalties every time someone visits a website I have created. It matters not if I were hired by someone or did it of my own accord. I should get paid. After all, I did do the work.

Creating a website is no different than creating a painting, singing a song, or writing a book. Websites are unique creations and many are designed to be unique, and can be considered artistic.

But allow me to remove the "artistic" element. Again, by your logic, everyone should be getting royalties for the work they do.

A person who mixes ingredients to create shampoo should also receive royalties as people enjoy the product. Distributors, both the trucking companies and retailers, should artificially mark up these products based on the perceived value of wanting the product as they also deserve a piece of the profits for the work they do.

Can you imagine the economic turmoil this will cause with this "I made it, so pay me!" mentality? It's absurd, and thus, the "Entertainment Economics" you seem to defend should be removed as an issue.

You may rebut to say "But employees are hired for their work, so it's not the same.", but you'd be wrong. Music labels hire, through contracts, artists they invest in so the comparisons are on par.

The largest aspect you're missing is many artists have learned their skills from someone else, or by works others have created. In the article mentioning Bono, there's absolutely no way he achieved his current status without learning. No human is born with "talent" to which is so natural, additional education isn't necessary.

Bono listened to music when he was younger free to him. Everyone has. The radio, songs in movies and television shows, and even hanging out with friends. He learned what was popular and derived his talent to meet or exceed this want of entertainment.

Now he wants to prevent people from listening to his talent without payment. Sorry, but that's an asinine position to take. If he really was concerned about his paycheck, he should have never signed with a label, which takes more of his direct monies than had he sold it himself.

People rely on distributors, but it is only the entertainment industry which fixes costs as to prevent giving consumers options. Why are movies $25? Why are songs $1 each? Where are the competitive alternatives?

If artists truly want people to pay (and they will), they must first understand consumers are given many choices and it's just not possible to fund everything available to them. We're not talking "greed" here, but common sense.

I will put a guarantee here that if song prices were $0.10 each, more people would buy. 10 for $1. Consumers will see a great benefit in this, as well as distributors and artists. While the latter two won't be raking in the millions, they will be making money.

The consumer can then "spread the wealth" rather than trying to debate what song is worth the $1. File sharing was a necessity borne because there were no alternatives to fill the want of consumers.

Maybe you're wealthier than I am, but there's no way I can afford paying for all the songs I'd like to have. Songs from the 50s to current, I could easily amass a library of over 10,000 songs. That's just too costly at $1 per song, let alone $1.30 each.

I can side with your position, to a point, that consumers should contribute a payment for the product they receive. That's part of economics. But if you truly believe consumers are willing to accept paying $2 per TV episode or $1 per song, you're completely ignorant of consumer demand.

This isn't about the "public" weighing their voice to expecting everything for free. They're voicing their opinion such things shouldn't cost as they do. These very consumers don't walk into Walmart to fill a cart and walk out without paying, but the contents of their cart will be based on what they can afford. The brand selection is the value they place on the product. If "Entertainment Economics" were applied, we'd be paying $100 for a bottle of shampoo at 8oz.

You should take a moment to really understand what's going on here rather than remain fixated on the protections of such works. ACTA is wrong. Copyright is wrong. Patents are wrong. We, as humans, should never, ever put a limit on knowledge, but you seem to believe this is a good thing to do.

There is NOTHING we humans do today which is not built on the knowledge of others. The moment a human is born, technologies and knowledge is applied to this child until the day they die.

I couldn't live with myself if I were the discoverer of a cure for diabetes then wrap this into a system designed to take advantage of capitalism to make me rich beyond my expectations. To know this knowledge could save millions of lives warrants no patents, copyrights, or even 1 red cent as to obtain it.

While music may not be on the same level, it falls within the same knowledge lock. A person can't perform a song written by someone else without paying. It may not save lives, but it spreads enjoyment. Songs, movies, books, and paintings are made to be enjoyed. The notion EVERYONE has to pay for this enjoyment is killing the entertainment industry and this logic fallacy is now moving towards businesses.

Defend your belief, Anti-Mike. Because one day, when all this continues to get out of hand, you won't have a job because companies can no longer afford to create without stepping on the knowledge of someone else without paying.

I don't care for this future you believe in, so please accept my defense I find your position appalling and do not find any intelligence within it.

Think about this while you write your reply to a website which charges you nothing, nor does the hosting service, the persons who built your computer as well as the others, or the inventors of microchips, plastic, or even the keyboard.

Because I don't believe your wallet can fund the "gimme! gimme!" mentality you so strongly support.

Re: In response to Anti-Mike's observations.

Yes, but...

"I will put a guarantee here that if song prices were $0.10 each, more people would buy. 10 for $1. Consumers will see a great benefit in this, as well as distributors and artists. While the latter two won't be raking in the millions, they will be making money.

The consumer can then "spread the wealth" rather than trying to debate what song is worth the $1. File sharing was a necessity borne because there were no alternatives to fill the want of consumers."

Good points, but you must include the other half of this equation: ALL must be included. That is, EVERY song must be available in this way. Price means nothing if you cant buy the thing you want at all. This is one of the biggest reasons people turn to "piracy" and trading, much more so than because they just want it free. I cant tell you how many songs I cant find because they are out of print, and not offered by the Big Labels. Take It Easy by Andy Taylor? OOP on the American Anthem soundtrack. Sorry, you lose. The John Larroquette Show? Sorry, not available. The movie Song of the South? Sorry, we dont like how that movie makes Disney look, so its not ever going to be made available. Yet thanks to infinite copyright, you can only obtain these illegally.

Yes, but...redeux

"How about The Larry Sanders Show which has only the first season on DVD. What about the other seasons? The show featured live music from bands that probably had contracts with the RIAA.

How much is the licensing for those acts to appear on a DVD collection for a television show?

Copyright sure make things easy!"

Exactly. Now you have a situation where I, as a consumer, CAN NOT BUY what I am interested in. Copyright has now enabled DENIAL of art to the public EVEN with payment/compensation involved (as I would pay if it was available). This is COMPLETELY counter to the intent of copyright. But Traitor Against Mankind and his corporate masters think this is how it SHOULD be: the consumer feeds at the trough of Big Media IF THEY DEIGN TO ALLOW IT. Absolute control. TAM and his ilk think this is GOOD, and necessary, and right, and what the law should be.

With the recent ReThuglican Supreme Court decision regarding corporate money in politics, all this verbal hand-wringing about Corp. behavior is going to be moot. They no longer have to steal elections from the people. Now they can buy them. Don't like Sen. A? Now they can legally "Swift-boat" him.

Or perhaps we can start making and distributing quantum communication devices (though this obvious idea has been patented by those who have done absolutely nothing and are doing absolutely nothing to develop, advance, or create/market such ideas but instead have merely stolen the idea from scientists (many of which have discovered the physics and mathematics for these ideas using TAXPAYER money)).

Re:

But the fact is that the laws of quantum physics do allow for communication and while this basic technology is long overdue due to corporate thugs suppressing it (I also blame corporate thugs for suppressing a cure for aids since Aids IS curable or almost curable if you merely modify some of ones bone marrow to produce Aids resistant antibodies, which we DO have the technology to do) but its eventual advancement is inevitable, even if it starts off in the black market.

Re: Re:

Just like the Civil war and all the wars responsible for stopping slavery that have resulted in much less slavery worldwide (and sure slavery still exists) and the war against racial discrimination that has resulted in much less racial discrimination worldwide (ie: especially within the laws, though racial discrimination certainly still exists), I suspect intellectual property is also one of those things that will eventually be SUBSTANTIALLY diminished and overcome, though I do not see any of this happening any time soon and certainly not within our generation and probably not the next generation but if we're very lucky the generation after the next (MAYBE, though I doubt that). Probably within the next few hundred years.

As a society humanity has progressed, but progress is VERY VERY VERY SLOW. But think, back in the days the rich used to enslave the masses to build pyramids, people would die by the drones and the pharaohs and leaders would still insist on requiring the masses to perform very strenuous labor that often resulted in high mortality rates (and yes, technology now does most of the heavy lifting which is partly why such conditions do not prevail as much these days). Racism used to be written within laws (ie: one group at one school, another group at another school, etc...) and the laws did not protect people based on race. We did progress as a species and while our progress is VERY VERY Slow, it cost many lives and was a result of many wars and whatnot, we nevertheless progressed and overcame and are better off now than a few thousand years ago even. Even China, which still has civil rights issues, is better off now than many hundred years ago. Humanity is progressing, albeit SLOWLY, but such progress was inevitable. Heck, there used to be a government granted monopoly on SUGAR yet that was eventually overturned, so we are indeed making some progress, but again, it's VERY VERY SLOW.

and even if you check the last century, the evil rich corporations had/have a government granted monopoly on airwaves and cableco/telco infrastructure and such and this provided a way for them to act as a gatekeeper of information from the masses and to censor viewpoints and information that they don't want the masses to see (note that this is still a huge improvement over slavery and government sanctioned racial discrimination even, but it's still a huge problem to humanity). Yet, despite this, with the Internet, we have eventually overcome these artificial communication barriers. and while the evil rich people are trying very hard to control the Internet, the fact is that it's inevitable that they will EVENTUALLY lose the communication war, even if they temporarily win the battle. Humans have a natural ability to detect fraud and, as Buddha said, there are three things that one can't hide for very long. The Sun, the Moon, and the Truth. and so far this seems to hold true.

and while intellectual property and government granted monopolies (ie: on cableco and telco infrastructure and on who can build new infrastructure and on public airwaves) are just some of those social injustices that the rich have managed to create in order to exploit the masses, EVENTUALLY humanity will overcome these injustices. Sure, by then there will be other injustices that aren't as bad and then eventually they will be overcome and the cycle will go on, but progress (or extinction) is inevitable.

But in order for progress to occur we must stand up for our rights. Slavery and racial discrimination was not overcome (and sure it does still exist, but to a substantially LESS degree than before) because those who are oppressed did nothing, it was overcome because people made a stand for what's right and it's not easy.

With technology at the state that it is, I have to wonder why citizens don't have the opportunity to vote online and weigh in on at least some day-to-day affairs. Surely that could help make the US more of a Democracy and less susceptible to Corporatism.

Re: Re: The Anti-Mike

copyright is to speeding as ...

The copyright to speeding analogy, I think he means that if it were up to the public we would vote down speeding laws. Then fatalities would soar and we would blame politicians or the rich or car makers or asphalt manufacturers... yada yada. Another analogy would be the bank bailouts, if we actually had a 1:1 vote majority rule, the public would have let the banks go under and (purportedly) the world would have spiraled into a depression. The point is that the public is generally incapable of autonomous rule and we need the nobles to prevent us from destroying society. The average IQ is 98 the majority (51%) has an average IQ of 63. As it was illustrated to me, that's why the majority has never ruled one man one vote. The majority is ... for lack of a better word ... retarded.

I'm sure this thread is long dead, I just wanted to say that for me, the copyright issues are not nearly as concerning as the patent issues. Our patent system is so broken the only way we can compete is to break everybody's system. TRIPS was an atrocity that gave rise to the current situation with double jeopardy IP lawsuits that have stifled innovation and investment in the digital sciences and have granted some really insane monopolies on purely imaginary concepts. If anyone in their right-mind is listening here.. Strip patent strengthening measures out of ACTA and you can reduce the shit storm that's going to take this treaty down.

My personal feelings about Copyright is somewhat irrelevant I choose consciously whom I will support and I vote with my dollar. With patents on the other hand, that's not even possible. You don't have the option to avoid one click checkout patents, or accessing a database from the Internet etc.

From the mouth of...

I own a business as a company that sells the video games and media it produces over the internet through advertising and direct fees. I was doing well before the DCMA, and the DCMA didn't increase my revenue at all. And honestly, some things are more important than profit. Intellectual freedom is more important than intellectual property.

Piracy is not as big a deal as people make it out to be, because people always do what is easiest for them. If you already have everything on the internet, they'll go to your website first before grabbing torrents. South park is available from torrents, but I use southparkstudios.com because it is more convenient and the AXE commercials are a small price to pay for convenience. What the people behind this bill want is to strip away the digital freedom of every single person on this planet so that they can keep on using the same dumb distribution channels they have been using since the inception of TV. I send more money to the makers of South Park specifically since I spend a great deal of time just watching their show over and over again, rather than watching the random crap that shows up on TV that I can't control. That's the way it should be.

The people behind ACTA are shortsighted, stupid, and dangerous. Anyone who supports ACTA needs to be kicked out of office and/or boycotted RIGHT NOW.

ACTA is dangerous to the rights, freedom, progress, and future of mankind. I've sat and watched quietly through many injustices, but I won't let anyone take my internet without a fight! I'm taking action with my letters, money, and friends starting now.